ML20154M394
| ML20154M394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1986 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Rusche B ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603140210 | |
| Download: ML20154M394 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I
[
~
UNITED STATES L
o,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'%..... $g February 5, 1986 CHAIRMAN Mr. Benard C. Rusche, Director Of fice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S.
Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585
Dear Mr. Rusche:
We are pleased to provide our comments to the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) on its proposal to Congress for monitot.ed retrievable storage (MRS).
Our comments are based on the information provided to us by the Department in our consultative role as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
This information has been provided primarily in the form of conceptual design information for the MRS.
Some comments stem directly from the Commission meeting at which you briefed us on the'MRS proposal on January 23, 1986.
The review schedule issued by DOE did not accommodate an extensive review of the environmental assessment information provided.
We note, however, that two of the three specific sites selected by the Department for consideration for the MRS have previously been subject to environmental analysis and evaluation for nuclear power plants by our agency in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
In addition, the NWPA stipulates turther environmental evaluation should the Congress approve the DOE proposal for an MRS.
Our comments are limited to our role as a regulatory agency.
In this regard the principal regulation governing the licensing of an MRS is 10 CFR Part 72.
We are currently considering modifications to that regulation to clarify procedures and requirements the Department will be following if the Congress approves the proposal.
With respect to our review from a regulatory standpoint, we offer the following observations.
1.
Siting - The preferred site identified by DOE for the MRS is the site of the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, which has already been shown to be a qualified site from the standpoint of public health and safety for a nuclear power plant.
Moreover, based on present information, the staff knows of no information which would disqualify the alternate sites.
DOE, however, has recognized the need for further investigations and evaluation of the designated site as related to the particular characteristics of the MRS design.
8603140210 860205 PDR CONN 8 NRCC CORRESPOPGECE PDR E
Mr. Senard C. Susche.
1 2.
Design - The MRS conceptual design appears reasonable from the standpoint of public health and safety.
Although an in-depth review would be required before the facility could be licensed, it appears from the conceptual design that each requirement in 10 CPR Part 72 can be met.
3.
Cask Certification - DOE must design a safe and reliable transport system, including durable transport equipment.
You have indicated that transport casks developed under NWPA for transporting commercial spent fuel to a repository will be certified by NRC.
Based on experience to date, spent fuel can be moved safely in NRC-certified casks.
4.
Demonstration of Consolidation - The consolidation of spent fuel needs to be adequately demonstrated to assure that this operation can be performed on the production-scale contemplated for the MRS.
To date, a few spent fuel assemblies have been taken apart and the rods censolidated, and a significant number of fuel assemblies have been reconstituted (i.e.,
the rods have been removed and replaced within assemblies).
In this sense the consolidation process is feasible.
You have indicated in the Design Verification Plan (Appendix C to the Program Plan) your intent to test and demonstrate disassembly / consolidation.squipment, principally at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
5.
Safcquards - The NRC staff's analysis of the MRS safeguards provisions at the conceptual design stage indicates that all NRC safeguards requirements can be met.
In addition to the above considerations having a bearing on the health and safety of the public, our observations are offered on the procedures and institutional relationships to be followed by the Department, a.
License Application - For DOE to meet its planned schedule, the license application you submit to NRC would have to be complete and technically sound, meeting all NRC requirements.
The NRC staff will continue to consult with DOE during the preparation of its application.
b.
Coordination with Repository Organizations - Because the MRS would prepare spent fuel to be compatible with repository requirements, DOE must closely coordinate efforts with each candidate repository organization.
Your schedule indicates submittal of a license application in 1989 fur the MRS, approximately two years prior to the selection of the first repository site from the slate of candidate sites.
The materials required for the dispose.1 packages produced at the MRS might be
Mr. Benard C. Rusche different for each candidate repository site according to the different physical and chemical properties of each repository environment.
Therefore, the application for the candidate MRS facility will need to show how DOE will be able to accommodate each design.
Another essential aspect to the preparation of the package is the close coordination required between the repository and MRS organizational quality assurance programs to assure that the-repository requirements are met.
At this time, the staff foresees no impediment at the MRS that would foreclose repository options for package requirements.
c.
Transportation Requirements - You have clearly indicated that you intend to use NRC-certified casks, but there remains a degree of uncertainty regarding your commitments to other NRC transportation requirements.
The DOE Draft Transportation Institutional Plan states that, "Further, when shipping commercial waste to facilities developed under the NWPA, the DOE has made the commitment to comply with DOT and NRC regulatory requirements that pertain to the transportation of nuclear materials."
However, except to the extent required by NWPA, DOE is exempt from NRC transportation 2
i regulations.
At the January 23 meeting, you indicated your intention to follow all NRC transportation regulations applicable to the commercial sector.
Therefore, you should clarify your transportation plans accordingly in the MRS proposal.
The above comments relate to the NRC staff's technical evaluation of the MRS proposal.
There are, however, some difficulties and uncertainties associated with the procedural approach the MRS would follow.
For example, integration of the Commission's NEPA responsibilities with its licensing responsibilities presents some conceptual difficulties.
The DOE proposal assumes that DOE would submit an environmental report with its MRS application, and the NRC would prepare the i
environmental impact statement (EIS).
While Section 141(d) of the NWPA relieves the Commission of the responsibility for considering the need for the facility, it is silent concerning alternative sites, the NEPA comment process, and cost-benefit analysis.
This creates an anomalous situation where the Commission would be considering such factors after the Congress had approved the MRS and, perhaps, DOE's preferred site.
How these procedural matters are resolved will significantly affect whether the 30-month licensing schedule suggested by the DOE MRS proposal is reasonably achievable.
We suggest, and you agreed at the January meeting, that Congress could address the NEPA issues in legislation authorizing the MRS.
In addition to the above, the NRC staff is preparing a report which provides additional detail on its evaluation of the design concepts for the MRS, principally from the perspective i
Mr. Benard C. Rusche '
of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72.
If the MRS is to be constructed and operated, it would be licensed pursuant to this regulation.. For this reason, the staff used 10 CFR 72 as its primary guidance.
Minor changes to this rule are being proposed to explicitly cover licensing of an MRS, should it be authorized by Congress.
This evaluation refers to the current version of 10 CFR 72, however, the changes the Commission has under consideration may affect a few requirements.
These areas are noted within this report.
The report, which will soon be available, should be useful to DOE in developing its definitive design, if Congress approves its proposal.
Sincerely,
)sviy3N,;ll b-s v
Nunzio J.
Palladino Chairman f
-h.
~l
(
!